"Energy Killers" Watch Out

Roy Innis, chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality, has come out swinging against "elitist" environmentalists, politicians, and the nonprofit foundations that fund them for promoting "energy racism" by cutting off access to fossil fuels in the US and pushing up energy prices. "They cause poor families to lose their homes. They make life tougher for families who've worked, struggled, and sacrificed to join the middle class. Then they throw out crumbs that make us beggars at the American banquet," Innis said in his book Energy Keepers-Energy Killers: The New Civil Rights Battle, published by Merril Press. "The fight over energy is the critical civil rights battle of our era," said Innis. "Simply put, energy transforms the civil rights enshrined in our Constitution into civil rights we enjoy in reality."

...

People "who produce energy for everything we do, everything we buy, everything we dream of," Innis designates as energy providers. The "Bull Connor" energy killers, he said, "are people who try to stop them: activists and politicians against oil and gas drilling, against coal mining, against nuclear power, against all energy production, choking off the abundant, reliable, affordable American resources we need."

...

"Sometimes I think environmentalists would rather see you jobless, homeless, or even dead than to support fossil fuel use, even the best, cleanest, and most abundant," said Innis. "The fear and loathing that some have for oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear power is no excuse for us, our policy makers, or our courts to ignore energy reality and widen our energy gap by promoting renewable illusions and closing off access to the real energy we need."

Hes so right that when the prices of energy are driven up by these alleged environmental groups, its the people at the bottom who get hurt. Then thrown a few crumbs. Eg.. how many poor people dream of one day having subsidized bus passes versus owning and driving around their own car?

Popular posts from this blog

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.